Forced academisation of schools -Julian Sturdy response

This is a response by Julian Sturdy (dated 8 June but received 29 June) to my letter of 4 May about the forced academisation of schools.

My response to this letter below.

---

Dear Mr Franklin

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my letter regarding blanket-academisation. I understand that you will have received further correspondence from me regarding the Government’s revised position on this issue. However, I wanted to address the specific concerns you raised in your latest email to me.

Firstly, it may well be the case that all’ of the teachers and head teachers you know wish to continue working in the maintained sector. However, this is certainly not true of all teachers and it is important to note the number who do work in academies and view conversion as successful to the educational outcomes of their schools.

Secondly, proposals to increase democratic accountability of schools have been proposed through allowing parents the right to petition regional schools commissioners where they believe that a given multi-academy trust is failing their children. This cannot currently be done by a school maintained by the local authority.

Again, all of the parents you know may express a preference for their children to be taught by 'qualified teachers’. I am sure that you will agree that it is important that we attract the best people to the teaching profession, which means that there should be individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and with a wide range of experience. I start from the presumption that head teachers are best placed to decide what teachers they employ. The ability to employ those without Qualified Teacher Status allows academies the same freedoms as fee-paying independent schools and many parents in this sector appear happy with teaching provision.

Fourthly, the Government’s proposals state that local authorities will retain powers to ensure that all children are given school places, ensure that the needs of vulnerable pupils are met, and hold academies and multi-academy trusts to account as champions of families and parents.

Fifthly, I am yet to find any evidence supporting your assertions regarding the performance of academies over the short- and long-term. 

As stated above, the local authority will retain the powers to ensure that all children are given school places and ensure that the needs of vulnerable children are met. Furthermore, I believe the challenge that you allude to in your sixth point relating to exclusion would be equally applicable to maintained schools.

Finally, the Government has also committed to reforming alternative provision and is proposing to introduce a system whereby mainstream schools remain accountable and responsible for the education of pupils who require this service.

I am not in favour of the government removing any requirement on schools to become academies because I believe that this has proven to be successful for those schools that were failing our children and required further improvement. However, as I made clear in my previous email I am opposed to the forced conversion of Good and Outstanding schools and I shall ensure that my views continue to be made clear on this matter.

I hope that this response is helpful and if you have any further concerns please do not hesitate to get in touch. 

Yours sincerely

Julian Sturdy

---

Dear Mr Sturdy,

Thank you for your letter of 8 June, which I received this morning – can I recommend email as it is faster, cheaper and greener.

It is not just all the teachers I know who oppose academisation.  The major teaching unions are opposed to (forced) academisation.  See for instance the NUT https://www.teachers.org.uk/campaigns/academies.  There are teachers who favour academies, though many of those that do work in academies would much prefer to see the school under democratic control where the concern is for the welfare of the pupils rather than meeting the requirements of the academy chains.

To say that parents have the right to petition the government appointed commissioners is a form of democratic accountability is ludicrous.  If the government were to replace parliament with regional commissioners who we had the right to petition, but no say over their appointment or re-appointment or policies I do not believe that you would describe that as democratic control.  There is no democratic accountability in the right to petition.  Democratic accountability requires the ability to select people on the basis of their policies and the right to recall or remove them if they fail to deliver.  None of this applies to commissioners; they are a bureaucratic not a democratic force.  Further, currently, where a school is considered failing by Ofsted it is required to become an academy whilst there is no such requirement on an academy to be returned to local authority control.  Indeed, where a school does not match Ofsted requirements over some small matter it may be required to become an academy despite the opposition of parents and teachers.  This is not democratic; it is authoritarian central control. 

The major point here is that there is no control over what the school does.  If it teaches fundamental Christianity or Islam; if it denies evolution and so on there is nothing that parents can do because they have no control over the academy chain.  If they don’t like what the local authority is doing, then they can vote new members in.  In short there is a complete loss of democratic control within academies.

As to attracting the “best people to the teaching profession” I am aware of many who would have been teachers but find the current imposition of the national curriculum which controls not only what is taught, but how it is taught a serious impediment.  Being the best people is not enough.  Would you be happy to be treated by an unqualified doctor because they were one of the “best people”?  However good people are they need training to be able to work effectively and this is as true of teaching as any other profession.  I can think of only one other profession with no entry requirements – Information Technology and look how many projects fail or are late and over budget!

Also, many good people are being switched off from teaching, in large part as much of the national curriculum concerns how to teach and is not evidence based; often going against the evidence to satisfy the prejudices of the Minister of Education.  I do have a theory about Ministers of Education.  Ministers are highly intelligent extremely ambitious people, but they believe what worked for them will work for everyone.  Not everyone is ambitious or highly intelligent and therefore actually need different methods of teaching if they are to learn effectively.  (Note that this is not a party political point as I have seen it in all governments for as long as I can remember ie Keith Joseph).

You state “the Government’s proposals state that local authorities will retain powers to ensure that all children are given school places”.  What will these powers be – given that they do not have any control over admissions to academies?  What will they do with pupils that have been excluded?  Currently some of these are educated via home visits and the like. Will local authorities have to build an entire infrastructure just for these children?  How will that be funded?  Without proper answers to these (and many more questions) it will lead to real problems once local education authorities are abolished.

As I said before “The whole academy programme is profoundly anti-democratic giving away of our schools to private bodies and removing any democratic oversight.  I hope that you will therefore push the government to remove any requirement on schools to become academies, and to introduce a mechanism to enable academy schools to return to LEA control.”

Best wishes

Tom.

Tom Franklin
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH

email:    tom@franklin-consulting.co.uk

Julian Sturdy - rendition and torture - we need the truth

Dear Julian Sturdy,

I am writing to ask that you please attend Wednesday’s House of Commons debate on the UK’s involvement in rendition and torture.

Evidence of UK involvement in the CIA rendition programme has long been in the public domain, but we have not received any answers from the Government; not even an admission of UK government involvement.  Therefore, I hope that you will consider attending the debate in order to help secure these answers and a true accounting for Britain’s complicity in renditions and subsequent torture.

In particular, I would like to bring to your attention the cases of two Libyan families who were kidnapped and rendered to Colonel Gaddafi’s prisons in 2004 in a joint CIA-MI6 operation.  The al Saadi family consisted of a father, mother, and four children aged 12 and under.  The Belhaj family included a heavily-pregnant woman, who was so severely mistreated during their ordeal her baby weighed just four pounds at birth.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) recently announced that, despite having been handed over 28,000 pages of material by Metropolitan Police investigators, it would not be bringing charges over these renditions due to a ‘lack of evidence.’

The CPS decision, and the UK’s wider involvement in the CIA torture programme, is due to be debated by MPs this Wednesday (29 June). I am asking that you attend the debate and ensure that the following questions are asked so that the truth about UK involvement in rendition and torture can finally be determined and made public:

Will ministers support a truly independent review of the decision not to bring charges over the Libyan renditions?

Will the government make public what ministers in 2004 knew about the rendition, now that the CPS has revealed some “political authority” was sought for the operation?  In particular, were ministers aware that A pregnant woman and children would be kidnapped?

Will the Government now honour its original pledge, made by the Prime Minister in July 2010, to hold an independent, judge-led inquiry into British complicity in torture?

I hope that you are able to attend this debate and ensure that these questions are asked so that this opportunity to get to the truth is not missed.

Yours sincerely

Tom Franklin

Julian Sturdy - tell government not to sell arms to Saudi Arabia

Dear Julian Sturdy,

I am deeply concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, and the UK's complicity through its continuing arms sales.

I am writing to urge you to speak out against UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia and, if you can, please also sign EDM 136 on the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia.

The UK government has continued to support the Saudi-led air-strikes in Yemen despite overwhelming evidence of repeated breaches of international humanitarian law.

This is in clear violation of UK's own guidelines on arms sales, and European and international law, and makes a mockery of the government’s claims to 'rigorously' control arms exports.

I am pleased that Parliament’s Committees on Arms Export Controls have launched an inquiry into UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and that the High Court is being asked to examine their legality.

I'd also like to draw your attention to a new report, "A shameful relationship: UK complicity in Saudi state violence".

Please speak out on my behalf by urging the government to stop arming Saudi Arabia and, if you can, signing EDM 136.

Yours sincerelt

Tom Franklin

Don't develop the Green belt - letter to Julian Sturdy

Dear Mr Sturdy

I am writing to you because I am deeply concerned about proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

I would be very grateful if you could raise my concerns in writing, as soon as possible, with Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Across England there is already plenty of land with planning permission: enough for at least 650,000 new houses with much more in the pipeline. New proposals, such as the ‘Housing Delivery Test’, could force local authorities to release even more greenfield sites for development unnecessarily. Instead, we should make developers build out land for which they already have planning permission.

I want to see a policy that both prioritises the re-use of suitable brownfield sites in urban areas, and restricts development on competing greenfield sites. Neither the NPPF as it stands, nor the changes proposed, are strong enough to make this happen.

I am also very concerned that over 275,000 houses are being proposed on Green Belt, despite Government commitments to protect it. This is nearly a three-fold increase from when the NPPF was introduced in 2012. We should abandon proposals to relax Green Belt policy and instead make clearer that unnecessary or major losses of Green Belt should be avoided.

Above all, we need to ensure that housing targets are based on a realistic assessment of what developers and local authorities are likely to be able to deliver, rather than aspirational building rates that have never been achieved even in the most buoyant economic times with massive public investment.

Please let me know Greg Clark’s response.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Franklin

Met Police FOIA response

If you don't want to read the whole response to my Freedom of Information Act request then the spoiler is "The Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the  information that  you have  requested"

---

Dear Mr Franklin

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2016040001401

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 25/04/2016.  I note you seek access to the following information:

• As I am sure you are aware, eight of us were tried for obstructing the highway outside the Excel Centre during the set-up of the Defence Security and Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition last year, and that we were acquitted on the grounds that we were attempting to prevent crime.  In particular, the judge said: “the court has been presented with clear, credible and largely unchallenged evidence from three experts that criminal wrongdoing had occurred at past DSEI exhibitions involving the sale of arms to countries which then used those arms against civilian populations and the sale of items that were inherently unlawful such as cluster munitions and items designed for torture and inappropriate restraint. There was, as a result, a compelling inference that such activities would also take place at the 2015 DSEI exhibition. “The court was also presented with clear, credible and largely unchallenged evidence that such criminal activities are not being properly investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted.” In the past extremely serious crimes have been found to be being committed at the exhibition including the sale of torture equipment, cluster bombs and land mines as well as the facilitation of the sale of weapons that are overwhelmingly likely to be used to commit human rights abuse.  Yet none of these crimes have been discovered by your officers, and when crimes have been discovered and reported no action has been taken.  This strongly suggests that you are more concerned with obstruction of the highway than with war crimes or torture.

To set my mind at rest I would be grateful if you could tell me what actions your officers have taken in the past to discover these crimes.  

1. Have you inspected exhibitors prior to the fair?

2. Do you have police in the fair briefed to look for illegal activity?

3. Are you vetting exhibitors and buyers to ensure that no human rights abusers are present?  

4. What level of resource are you devoting to the prevention and detection of crime at DSEI?

NB.  If it would help this can be considered a freedom of information access request. Please note that I am asking about the efforts that you have made I am also writing to the Clarion events, HMRC and the National Crime Agency .

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the  information that  you have  requested, as the duty in S1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 23(5) - Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security bodies
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 30(3) - Criminal Investigations
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(5) – Personal Information

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before I explain the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful to outline the parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for information can be answered.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, state under Section 1(a) of the Act, whether it holds the requested information and, if held, then communicate that information to the applicant under Section 1(b) of the Act.
The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is unsuitable for release. Importantly the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

Section 23 - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters

(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) which was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).

This is an absolute exemption and I am therefore not required to complete a public interest test.

Section 24 - National security

 (2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, exemption from section 1(1)(a) is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public interest test and provide evidence of harm.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not we hold any further information, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

National security is not defined in the Act. However in the case of the Norman Baker MP v. IC (2007) the House of Lords referred to the decision in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Rehman (2001):
(i) national security  means ‘the security of the United Kingdom and its people’
(ii) the interests of national security are not limited to action by an individual which can be said to be ‘targeted at’ the UK, its system of government or its people
(iii) the protection of democracy and the legal and constitutional systems of the state is a part of national security as well as military defence
(iv) ‘action against a foreign state may be capable indirectly of affecting the security of the United Kingdom’
(v) ‘reciprocal co-operation between United Kingdom and other states in combating international terrorism is capable of promoting the United Kingdom’s national security’

Based on this definition national security encompasses a wide spectrum and it is our duty to protect the people within the UK.  Public safety is of paramount importance to the policing purpose and must be taken into account in deciding whether to disclose if the information is or is not held.

To confirm or deny whether we hold any information, would allow interested parties to gain an upper hand and awareness of policing decisions used to safeguard national security. As mentioned above, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the general public. Therefore, to confirm or deny whether we hold any information pertinent to your request could potentially be misused proving detrimental to national security.

In this current environment, where there is a possibility of increased threat of criminal activity, providing any details even to confirm or deny that any information exists could assist any group or persons who wish to cause harm to the people of the nation which would undermine the safeguarding of national security.

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S24 - The information simply relates to national security and disclosure would not actually harm it. The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S24 - By disclosing any policing actions including level of resources would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public. To counter this, a full review of security measures would be needed and additional costs would be incurred.

Section 30 - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1) or (2). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/30

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public interest test.

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S30 – A statement confirming or denying whether or not information is held in relation to your request would enhance the transparency and accountability of the MPS and its operations.  This would provide an insight into the police service and enable the public to have better understanding of effectiveness of the police, particularly, in relation to the spending of public funds and the decisions taken by officers. This may also enhance public confidence in the police.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S30 – To confirm or deny the existence of any information in relation to your request would disclose policing practices, thereby exposing operational procedures and investigative protocols.  Information relating to investigative tactics and protocol will rarely be disclosed under the Act and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure.  

To confirm or deny the existence of such information would reveal policing tactics regarding services that may or may not have been used and particular tactics deployed.  This could be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

Balancing Test - Confirming or denying the requested information is held would reassure the public that any investigation is being or has been properly conducted and would allow for a greater understanding of how information is gathered. Confirming or denying that any information relevant to the request is held, would however, enable those who would wish to cause harm to identify the focus of policing activity thereby exposing operational procedures and investigative protocols and help them to evade prosecution.  Therefore, by neither confirming or denying that information that is relevant to your request is held protects any ongoing investigation that the MPS may or may not be conducting. Information relating to investigative tactics and protocol will rarely be disclosed under the Act. This could be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

After weighing up the competing interests, I believe that the balance test favours neither confirmation or denial.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement

(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice -
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/31

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public interest test and provide evidence of harm.

Evidence of Harm

To confirm or deny whether the information requested is held relevant to this request could be detrimental to law enforcement.

FOIA is considered to be a release to the world as once the information is published the public authority, in this case the MPS, has no control over what use is made of that information.  Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant it could be of use to those who seek to disrupt any police investigation as it would by a process of elimination, enable them to identify what level of policing activity is likely to take place and what tactics may or may not have been used.

The effect of this information being available to the applicant and more importantly those who might wish to disrupt Police tactics, would be a requirement for a full review of police tactics and possible increase in costs to the public purse.

To confirm or deny that the requested information is held may be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public, and this would also impact upon any current  investigations that may or may not be in progress.

Public Interest Test
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - Confirming or denying whether the information is held would allow the public to see where public funds have been spent and allow the Police service to appear more open and transparent.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying whether the information is held, would mean that law enforcement tactics would be compromised which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime. These tactics would need to be reviewed which would require more resources and would add to the cost to the public purse.

Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational information, if held, into the public domain, which would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map strategies used by the MPS.

The MPS is reliant upon these techniques during operations and the public release of the modus operandi employed during the enquiries would prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct similar investigations.

Balancing Test - After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the requested information, if held, would not be in the public interest as by confirming or denying that information is held would compromise law enforcement and could be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service, resulting in costs to the public purse.

Section 40 – Personal Information

Section 40(5) provides the duty to confirm or deny-

(a) does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1), and
(b) does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent that either-
(i) the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section 10 of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or
(ii) by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that Act (data subject's right to be informed whether personal data being processed).

As mentioned above a Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because, under Freedom of Information, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world and not just to one individual.

To confirm or deny whether personal information exists in response to your request could publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act.

Overall Balance test

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so would undermine National Security or law enforcement.  Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threats posed by groups or individuals there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and operations.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Areas of interest to the police are sensitive to the extent that they reveal local intelligence.  To confirm or deny the existence of the requested information, if held, would allow interested parties to gain an upper hand and awareness of policing decisions used during investigations. As previously stated, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Therefore, to confirm or deny the existence of any information that you have requested, into the public domain could potentially be misused proving detrimental to ongoing and future investigations.  

To confirm or deny information is held would harm law enforcement functions of the MPS by disclosing operational techniques.  This would compromise the future law enforcement capabilities of the police, which would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that confirmation or denial of any information being held concerning your request would not be in the public interest. To confirm or deny that information is held could be detrimental to any investigations that may be being conducted now or in the future.

However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused due to the delay in responding to your request.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.  

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact me via email at maureen.mcguire@met.police.uk, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Maureen McGuire
Infoprmation Manager
Information Rights Unit

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Section 23(5) of the Act provides:
Security Bodies
(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) which was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).

Section 24(2) of the Act provides:
National Security
(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, exemption from section 1(1)(a) is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

Section 30(3) of the Act provides:
Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities
(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1) or (2).  

Section 31(3) of the Act provides:
Law Enforcement
(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
Section 40(5) of the Act provides:
Personal Information
(5)        The duty to confirm or deny-

(a) does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1), and
(b) does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent that either-
(i) the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section 10 of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or
(ii) by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that Act (data subject's right to be informed whether personal data being processed).

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal Services, 10 Lambs Conduit Street, London, WC1N 3NR.
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
foi@met.police.uk

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

letter to French Ambassador re: blocking aid to Calais

The Ambassador

French Embassy:

58 Knightsbridge

London

SW1X 7JT

Re: refusal of entry to France

20 June  2016

Dear Ambassador,

I am writing to express my outrage at your country’s refusal to allow the aid convoy to Calais to enter France on Saturday 18 June.  As a member of that convoy I had booked a ticket on the ferry months ago and driven from York to Dover in order to get the ferry and deliver the aid to refugees in Calais.

I was shocked that customs had been ordered to prevent our humanitarian convoy from entering France when what we wished to do was deliver aid and express our solidarity with the refugees.  In the past I have seen some of the worst countries in the world blocking aid, but never expected to see that happen within the EU, where freedom of movement is one of our basic rights.

I would like you to reassure me that humanitarian convoys will never again be blocked from entering France.

I also left some of the aid, that I would have personally delivered to refugees, on the steps of the Embassy.  I hope that you will have this delivered to the refugees as a matter of urgency, as I was prevented from doing so.

Please can you tell me what has happened to the aid that was left at the embassy and when it was delivered.

Yours sincerely

Tom Franklin

Complaint to Foreign office re blocking of aid convoy to Calais

The Rt Hon Philip Hammond

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Downing Street West

LONDON

SW1A 2AL

Re: refusal of entry to France

20 June  2016

Dear Secretary of State

I am writing to ask you to complain to the French government in the strongest possible terms over their refusal to allow an aid convoy delivering aid to refugees in Calais to enter France.

On Saturday 18 June around 250 cars, vans and lorries attempted to deliver aid to refugees in France.  This had been planned for many months (I signed up several months ago), and we were bringing many tons of urgently needed aid for some of the most desperate people.

When we got to Dover we were help up at the port and the French authorities refused to allow us through and took around an hour to process a few cars before rejecting them.  Not only is there supposed to be free movement of people within the EU, but we were an aid convoy delivering aid.  If this had been aid to refugees in some other country the convoy would have been applauded and supported by the French government, but instead they were preventing its delivery.

Please “request and require” of the French authorities that they “allow [UK citizens] to pass freely without let or hindrance, and afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary”.  And that they allow all future aid convoys through.

I look forward to hearing what you have done and the French response.

Yours sincerely

Tom Franklin

CC: Julian Sturdy MP

Response from the college

This a response to my request that the College of policing investigate the work they are doing for Saudi Arabia as collusion with torture (that can be found here):

---

Dear Mr Franklin

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns in the complaint you made on 8 June about our work with Saudi Arabia. This challenge is welcome and we must always carefully consider who we engage with and why. We constantly evaluate and review the training we deliver and we work with countries all over the world to introduce officers to British policing methods, reinforce human rights and emphasise the democratic principle of justice for all.

Quite rightly, our decisions on whether to carry out this training must be finely balanced between the opportunities to contribute to reform and the difficulties of working with countries whose standards of human rights may be at odds with our own.

As part of this, when we receive a request to undertake training overseas we carry out a full risk and justice assessment and complete a detailed outline of the proposed work, including specific consideration of human rights issues.

We have never provided training without the authority and approval of the International Policing Assistance Brief (IPAB), who bring together government departments including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Home Office, Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development to carefully consider requests for international policing assistance in line with Government policy, including the promotion of human rights. All submissions to IPAB must detail
Human Rights considerations. In sensitive cases, and particularly where there may be human rights concerns, proposals are submitted to Ministers.

Modern forensic investigation techniques can contribute to a move away from confession and witness-based convictions, thereby reducing the likelihood of miscarriages of justice. Any evidence that the skills provided have been used to violate human rights would be investigated immediately.

A full Q&A on our international work can be found here http://www.college.police.uk/News/College-news/Pages/International-FAQ.aspx

Yours sincerely
Vaughan Willmore
Strategic Planning and Public Interest Lead
College Of Policing

---

I have submitted a freedom of information request for the risk assessment and submission to IPAB.

investigate the support for torture at the College of policing

This is a formal complaint against the College of Policing for undertaking work which supports the use of torture in Saudi Arabia.

The college is currently training the police in the more effective identification of suspects, in the full knowledge that many of the suspects arrested by the Saudi police will be tortured (see http://www.reprieve.org.uk/press/uk-minister-passes-buck-over-saudi-police-training-during-westminster-debate/) .

Torture is one of the most serious crimes, and it is a crime to support torture directly or indirectly.  It is quite clear that the training being provided by the College of Policing is intended to lead tovarrests and that there is a very high probability that many of the people arrested will subsequently be tortured.

Please investigate this as a matter of urgency, prevent any training unless it can be demonstrated that there is no danger of the work leading to torture and ensure the prosecution of those involved in these crimes.

Best wishes

Tom.

Tom Franklin
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH

email:    tom@franklin-consulting.co.uk

Stop training Saudi Police forces that use torture - letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Julian,

We have already corresponded on Saudi Arabia and weapons, but I would now like to draw to your attention the  intention of the government to support Saudi Arabia in arresting people who are extremely likely to be tortured upon arrest.  Under international law it is illegal to do anything which may result in torture, yet the government seems to be willing to allow British Police to support the Saudi Arabian police in the identification of suspects in the full knowledge that the Saudi police have used torture against such suspects on a regular basis.  The BBC quotes a government spokesperson as saying “..if it was shown that the skills learned had been used in human rights violations, the Foreign Office and the college would "reconsider the training"”.

Given that there is already a considerable body of evidence that the Saudi police use torture (see for instance https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/saudi-arabia/report-saudi-arabia/ or https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/26/un-committee-against-torture-review-saudi-arabia) we should be using the precautionary principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle) and not training police officers unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the results of our actions will not lead to torture.

Torture is one of the most serious crimes that exist, and is one of the few crimes where there is universal jurisdiction, it is therefore imperative that we ensure that we play no part in supporting it, either directly or indirectly.

Please will you:

·        Write to the Home Office asking them to refuse visas for Saudi police officers to attend the police college.

·        Write to the Home Office asking them to order the police college to desist from training any police force which uses torture.

Best wishes

Tom.

Tom Franklin
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH

email:    tom@franklin-consulting.co.uk

Stop Arming Saudi

Dear Julian Sturdy,

I am deeply concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, and the UK's complicity through its continuing arms sales.

I am writing to urge you to speak out against UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia and to attend a parliamentary debate on Wednesday 8th June from 9.30am to 11am on "Human rights and the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia."

If you can, please also sign EDM 136 on the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia.

The UK government has continued to support the Saudi-led air-strikes in Yemen despite overwhelming evidence of repeated breaches of international humanitarian law.

This is in clear violation of UK's own guidelines on arms sales, and European and international law, and makes a mockery of the government’s claims to 'rigorously' control arms exports.

I am pleased that Parliament’s Committees on Arms Export Controls have launched an inquiry into UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and that the High Court is being asked to examine their legality.

I'd also like to draw your attention to a new report, "A shameful relationship: UK complicity in Saudi state violence".

Please speak out on my behalf by urging the government to stop arming Saudi Arabia and, if you can, signing EDM 136.

Yours sincerely

Tom Franklin

If you want to email your MP you can do it from the CAAT web site